A method yes, but not a great one. We are a society of specialists. Common wisdom is often inferior interpretation to that of experts. Allow mass voting on which expert opinion is most favorable, and you get a system that compromises between merit and popular support, a pretty functional democracy. Allow mass voting to determine the major talking points from the ground up though, and you can easily get inferior discourse propagated by what appeals best to that common wisdom, drowning out expert opinion.

Part of the problem is we have niche media. Subscription pages and subreddits. Of course, you like your own subscription pages, you chose them and they align with your world views. But these nich mediums are echo chambers where what you want to hear is spoon fed to you and you can turn your blinders to the things going viral elsewhere. It exacerbates the problem of experts getting drown out. The will of the niche can essentially pre-determine which expert opinions will be completely ignored because they have uncomfortable implications against the will of the niche. If we could vote for globally visible vitality, at least you'd have a popular discussion happening in the full context of our society. But instead we have spaces where extremes are voted for because extremists came together to be extreme together, and it's what they like. They vote away unpleasant facts and spread convenient lies.